- so 1t would be difficult to decide. But since almost
all these are corollaries of accepting the qualitless absolute Brahman the first and fore.lost juestion to be considered in connection with the study of soundness or otherwise of Advaita is whether we can explain the world phenomena with that Brahman as the ultimate Truth. Ramanuja considers in detail and extensively the question of proof of such Truth and comes to the conclusion that there is, there could b८ , no proof at all. The other question is whether the Advaita Brahman can be the ultimate cause of the world. Such Brahman as that is incapable cf could knowing or wiling or doing anything. IHow the varld conne into existence or appear ? It has been said in Advaita that knowing or viiling neans P1 change and there could be no change in Brahman. Nos Maya is brought in. Let us accept for the sake of argument there is such thing as Maya. What happens ? Maya is insentient like Sankhya's Prakrit. It could not think or move. Badarayana in his Brah. mas-tras is emphatic in declaring that the Sankhya philsophy has avcfully failed to explain the existance of the world. We have to consider how is Advaita better ? Brahman is a changless being like San . kh as Purusha and M1aya is as insentient as their Prakriti. In none of them any thinking or novement towards the creation of the world could happen. ‘United the two act' is no answer, since union itself is impossible. Besides, two blind men coming to- gether cannot become capable of secing, and the
